Financial Services: UK Economy

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of financial services to the UK economy; and calls on the Government to provide adequate support to help create the right regulatory and operational environment for that industry to ensure that the UK is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate on the future of the UK’s leading industry: financial services. The arguments about its importance are well known and well rehearsed. The financial services sector is the UK’s biggest export industry by far, with a £78 billion a year trade surplus. In fact, the UK is the biggest net exporter of financial services in the world; we export more financial services than any other country on the planet, including the US, Singapore and all of the EU combined. That means that, as a country, we can afford to import all the smartphones, flatscreen TVs and other manufactured goods that we are so keen on, particularly at this time of year.

The financial services sector adds £194 billion gross value added—that is, it contributes £10 in every £100 of all the UK’s economic output. One in 14 UK workers is in financial services. That is 2.3 million employees, two thirds of whom are outside London. Indeed, this industry really is spread across the country. Scotland has less than a tenth of the population of France, but exports about half the amount of financial services that France does. The financial services sector pays more tax in a year than any other sector—£76 billion in the last year. As the Chancellor pointed out in his Mansion House speech in the summer, that is enough to pay for the entire national police force and school system combined.

During this hideous pandemic, I am glad to say that the financial services sector stepped up to the plate and played a crucial role in keeping the economy going. It lent more than £75 billion in emergency finance to nearly 2 million businesses. Indeed, it lent £101 million to more than 2,000 businesses in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire. To help homeowners, lenders also gave nearly 3 million mortgage deferrals during the pandemic. The financial services sector certainly has played its part in ensuring that the economy has bounced back so quickly. Now, guided by the Government, it is also increasingly playing a critical role in ensuring that we reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. From green bonds to climate-related financial disclosures to carbon markets, the financial services sector will help, rather than hinder, in the biggest challenge facing humankind: stopping climate change.

Although we all recognise the importance of financial services, it is not a popular sector. A leading German politician once said to me that it was the great British tragedy—that we do not like our most successful industry. It has often brought that unpopularity upon itself; we all know the reasons, so I will not rehearse them here. It is one of the few industries in which we are genuinely world leaders, but regular surveys of international financial centres show that our crown is starting to slip: London is now usually ranked second to New York; our lead over Singapore and Hong Kong shows signs of shrinking; and our global market share in some sectors, such as insurance and bank lending, is trending down. That is a cause for concern, but not alarm. We can turn the tide, but we need to have a clear strategic objective that the UK should be the world’s leading international financial centre.

The industry is at a major turning point. Financial services policy in the next decade will be very different from financial services policy in the last decade. We are at the beginning of a new era. There are two major reasons for this, and both represent major opportunities. The first is that the wide-ranging reform and reconstruction of the industry in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis has, by and large, been completed. Almost the entire regulation of the industry was rewritten in a tsunami of reforms from both the EU and UK. This absolutely needed to be done to ensure that the crisis could not happen again—to protect taxpayers and consumers—but that regulatory repair job is now largely behind us. We must not forget any of the lessons from it, but we can now pursue a more forward-looking agenda. The Government have set this out in their document, “A new chapter for financial services”, which was published earlier this year and which I very much welcome. It sets out a vision for the UK as a leading financial centre that is open, innovative, competitive, and green.

The second reason that we are at a turning point is that we have left the EU. Clearly, leaving the single market represented a major challenge for many financial services companies—and I think that I am right in saying that not everyone in the industry fully supported Brexit. But leaving the EU has created opportunities to ensure that regulation and legislation is tailored to our national circumstances. We do not have an equivalence deal with the EU, nor, indeed, that promised memorandum of understanding. I actually never thought that such a deal or memorandum was that necessary; it was more a “nice to have”, rather than a “must have”.

There are many other existing legal routes for UK-based financial services companies to sell to clients in the EU, as we are currently seeing. The no-deal scenario that we had in financial services does have the advantage of giving us full regulatory control. There are three fundamental problems with the EU financial services regulation, from a UK perspective. The first is that the necessity of getting agreement from 27 or 28 countries means that it is very inflexible; once a law is made, it is very difficult to change it. Secondly, the EU tends to focus on competition between its members rather than global competition. It is more worried about competition between London, Paris and Frankfurt than between London, New York and Singapore. Thirdly, the EU necessarily assumes a one-size-fits-all approach even though markets in different EU countries often have incredibly different dynamics. In contrast, when we had the chairman and chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority in front of the Select Committee yesterday, they talked about how we can now have a very agile policy regime.

When we left the EU, the Government ensured legal continuity, as they had to, by incorporating all European financial services legislation wholesale into UK law. Now, though, we can take our time to consider what reforms we want both to EU-originated laws and to laws that we adopted unilaterally when we were part of the EU. We must of course abide by global regulatory principles, as set out by international bodies such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Financial Stability Board, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and the Financial Action Task Force. However, those various principles are at a high level and below them lies an awful lot of detail—and we know where the devil lies. We must continue being a beacon of high regulatory standards and resist any temptation of a race to the bottom, but we should also get the details right and ensure that they are appropriate, proportionate, and do not have unintended consequences. There is no conflict between abiding by globally high standards and being globally competitive.

Reform of imported EU legislation will take many years, if not decades, but the Government have made a start. They have completed the Lord Hill review of stock market listings and the Kalifa review of financial technology and adopted their recommendations, which now need to be implemented. We need to ensure that the prospectus directive is made more proportionate. I personally support allowing two classes of shares to encourage investment in start-up companies. The Government are now consulting on regulatory reform of wholesale financial markets, particularly the second markets in financial instruments directive, MiFID II, and the rules on the capitalisation of the insurance market—Solvency II. If we get the reforms of Solvency II right, that promises to unleash productive investment across the UK, especially in high-growth firms. MiFID II and the European market infrastructure regulation are extraordinarily detailed and prescriptive, and could be simplified without harm. Excessive detail can prevent beneficial innovation. We should avoid gold-plating international standards, unless there are clear reasons to do so. Rules on pre-trade transparency can be counterproductive. The share trading obligation can be safely removed.

Some retail legislation, such as on PRIIPS—packaged retail investment and insurance products—is applied to wholesale markets for little purpose. This week on the Treasury Committee, we heard from representatives of the commodities exchange, ICE Futures Europe, that they are required to produce countless retail key information documents for institutional investors who do not want them and will never read them. It was, they said, a pointless waste of time. Retail and wholesale markets are different and need to be treated differently. We should avoid making our rules extraterritorial unless there is a clear reason to do so. The EU often requires all EU-headquartered financial services companies to abide by EU rules wherever they operate in the world, in a deliberate attempt to set global regulation, but the UK should start with the presumption that UK-headquartered financial institutions need only abide by the rules in the markets where they are actually operating, as long as those markets operate by global standards. For example, when trading in the US, the presumption should be that UK financial services companies just need to abide by US rules.

The Government should also consider reforms to the capital requirements directive and regulation. These are the rules that implement the Basel capital rules for banks into EU and then into UK law. The Basel rules are designed for international banks operating across borders, not domestic banks operating just within one country, but the requirements of the single market meant that the EU ensured that the same capital rules were applied to domestic banks operating just in one country as were applied to international banks operating around the world. The UK should consider following the US rather than the EU and not require non-systemically-important domestic banks, such as challenger banks, to abide by inappropriate global capital rules. This could improve competition among banks without affecting prudential stability.

There is also domestic legislation that the UK could usefully revisit. The Treasury is currently reviewing the ringfencing rules separating retail and wholesale banks, which, in part, duplicates imported EU regulation on bank recovery and resolution. The ringfencing rules can lead to very complex and inappropriate governance structures for retail banks that do not have any significant investment banking operations, and it is certainly worth looking at whether that can be changed.

Critical to the continuing success of financial services will be the process by which we make new rules, which the Government are also reviewing. Our financial services rules will no longer go through the EU policy-making machinery. They will no longer be scrutinised in extraordinary depth and amended at length by the European Parliament’s formidable Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which I wrestled with many times, and which was once admirably chaired by the UK’s own Baroness Bowles. There is no way that the UK Parliament has the capacity to replicate that function. Parliament must set the objectives and principles of future financial services regulation, but the details should be determined by the regulators, particularly the FCA and the Bank of England.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I agree that, as we are currently set up, the UK Parliament could not even begin to replicate what the European Parliament did with regard to oversight of regulation, but surely, if we, as a Parliament, were properly geared up with appropriate support, we could.

[Anthony Browne]

I basically agree with the hon. Member, a fellow member of the Treasury Committee.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

This is a really important point that we discussed in the debate last November prior to the Financial Services Act 2021, which came into force earlier this year. The key point is that we are giving the regulator huge increases of power with almost no appropriate increase in parliamentary scrutiny of those powers.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly the point I was about to come to.

This will give the regulators more power, as my hon. Friend said, over issues that will directly affect the lives of voters. That means that they must be made more accountable to voters’ representatives—that is, to Parliament. The Government and the Treasury Committee are considering how that might work, and the Committee has held various hearings on the issue.

One proposed solution is a stand-alone financial services committee such as exists in Washington—the US House Committee on Financial Services, a stand-alone committee that just considers financial services. However, there is a real risk that that would tread on the toes of and undermine the existing Treasury Committee, which must retain oversight of all the Treasury’s functions. Another alternative is a full Committee of both Houses—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—but that would be unmanageable on an ongoing basis. It has worked as a task and finish group, such as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, but it would be very difficult on an ongoing basis. I am coming to the conclusion that the Treasury Committee needs—I totally agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) on this—a well-supported sub-Committee, or secretariat, that can do the work in focusing on financial services regulation and holding the newly empowered regulators to account. It could include appointed expert advisers, as well as members from the House of Lords, on an appropriate basis.

Obviously, we would need to agree the governance around that. As the Government have made clear, this is an issue properly for Parliament itself to decide. The Treasury Committee will make its own recommendations in due course. Indeed, if any Members here have other thoughts on it, I would be very interested to hear them.

The regulators themselves are also changing. The Government have proposed giving them international competitiveness objectives, but that must be very much secondary to their principal objectives of financial stability and consumer protection. They must not lose focus on their principal objectives.

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right that we must not move away from the primary focus, but does he agree—he made the point earlier on the difference between wholesale and retail—that there ought to be a more balanced view between wholesale regulation and those two objectives if we are to remain a global centre internationally?

[Anthony Browne]

I agree. I support having a secondary objective of international competitiveness and growth. A regulator could decide on policy A or policy B and, from a UK perspective, it could make no difference in terms of consumer protection or prudential stability, but one could mean that we were more able to compete internationally. We asked the chief executive and chair of the Financial Conduct Authority about this in the Treasury Committee yesterday and they went through the details on how that might affect their thinking. But we absolutely must not lose sight of prudential stability. We have had a crisis once and we do not want it again.

We must maintain our support for innovation in financial services, as long as it brings real consumer and economic benefits. We must ensure that the fintech sector thrives. Creating a digital identity ecosystem, which the Government are looking at, will certainly help. As cryptocurrencies grow, it is inevitable that they will need some form of regulation to protect consumers, but it must be done in a proportionate way that focuses on tackling any harms. It is absolutely right that the Bank of England is exploring central bank digital currencies. We do not know whether retail customers want direct access to central bank funding, but it is absolutely right that we try to find out.

Finally, I want to cast our eyes across the world, and look at international partnerships. We are no longer part of the EU, and we do not know what our future relationship with it will be. As I said earlier, I consider any memorandum of understanding as a “nice to have” rather than a “must have”, and it certainly must not shackle the UK’s new regulatory regime. Any partnership would require both sides to agree it, and there seems little political desire for that at the moment on the other side of the channel. Rather, UK-based banks are worried that the EU is considering ways deliberately to make it more difficult to offer services to their EU-based clients, and we have to keep an eye out for that. That makes it all the more important that the UK forms meaningful partnerships with other international financial centres. I have long advocated a close financial services partnership between the UK and Switzerland, a major financial centre. We share a common approach, a global outlook and pragmatism.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend and current member of the Treasury Committee.

[Felicity Buchan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that given their importance to our economy, both in London and throughout the country, we need to ensure that financial services are at the front when we are negotiating trade deals and market access with other countries?

[Anthony Browne]

I very much agree. I was coming to this point. If we can get those elements into trade agreements, we should aspire to do that. However, often, regulatory agreements between regulators are more appropriate.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to the importance of financial services in trade deals, it is important that we are aware of supporting other professional services that go with them, such as law and accountancy? The legal underpinning and enforceability of our financial services deals is critical going forward.

[Anthony Browne]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I have been focusing obviously on financial services, but there is the wider concept of financial and related professional services, including legal services. As he knows far better than me, London and the UK are a global centre for legal services. That is a huge export industry in its own right and we should do what we can to promote that internationally.

I was just talking about the importance of the relationship between the UK and Switzerland. We have a lot to gain by working more closely together. That is why I am delighted that the Government are working towards an outcomes-based mutual recognition agreement with Switzerland. I emphasise that it is outcomes-based because it is pragmatic and we share that pragmatism. Similarly, we can have an ambitious agreement with Singapore and other jurisdictions, such as Japan and South Korea.

I am pleased that the Government are working closely with the United States to remove barriers to financial services trade between us. We have some agreements and we could have more. The Government are doing the same with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Coming to the point about trade agreements that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) raised, I welcome the agreement in principle on the UK-New Zealand free trade deal, which facilitates cross-border data transfer and recognises the importance of allowing firms to offshore back-office functions. Those are both important for financial services.

We can promote financial services through trade agreements and mutual recognition agreements between regulators to the benefit of both sides. The Government must continue to work closely with our partners through the G7, the G20 and the Financial Stability Board to ensure consistent international standards. As the most globalised of all international financial centres, we are more impacted by global inconsistencies on standards than other jurisdictions.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about co-operation between regulators and agreements between regulators. Does he agree that that is particularly important in the context of dealing with the United States, where much of the regulation takes place at the state, rather than federal level? Therefore, it is not easily embraced in a straightforward, normal type of free trade agreement.

[Anthony Browne]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. I know that the UK Treasury has spent a lot of time wrestling with the relationships with the United States, which is in many ways almost unmanageable, because it has 50 different state regulators, and the federal regulators answer to Congress, rather than to the Government, so agreements between Governments may not have an impact on the regulators themselves.

In conclusion, we are at a turning point for Britain’s financial services industry. In the past decade, we have faced the major challenges of the global financial crisis and Brexit, and we took the steps necessary to forge through both of those. We can now look forward to a new era of financial services, with new opportunities. We need to make sure that the UK is the undisputed leading international financial centre, both globally competitive and serving communities and consumers across our country, and exporting more, creating more jobs, funding more businesses and paying more tax. That is something we should all welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you were in the Chair on Monday night when we had a rather fractious debate on a different subject, and I think we all agree it is a nice contrast to have a debate on which there is such wide agreement.

To the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), you mentioned a couple of times that you agree with me on a couple of things, and you almost sounded surprised. To the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who also sponsored this debate, I agreed with almost everything you said.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Please say “she said”, not “you said.”

[Anthony Browne]

This has been a well-informed, thoughtful and good-natured debate, and it was great to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) talk about the importance of financial services to Scotland—I also made that point.

Many hon. Members raised points that I did not mention in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned the importance of financial crime, which I thought about mentioning, and she is right that it is a big challenge we need to tackle. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) spoke about the importance of legal services and related financial services, which are all part of a package. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about the importance of getting the right skills and talent, which I did not address but is obviously completely true. And my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) touched on the importance of access to EU markets, which is critical and unknown at this point. It was good to hear the remarks from the Minister in summing up; it is great to hear that the Government are clearly very supportive of the financial services sector, committed to getting international agreements and making incremental changes that we can all agree on.

I have one last observation to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about the Minister being known as the one of the best City Ministers ever. I agree with that, but it is a misnomer calling him a City Minister because, as he said, and as everyone else has said, financial services are important for the entire country. So perhaps we need to change the informal name for that job. This has been an important and thoughtful debate, and it is nice to be part of a debate where there is a large consensus on the way forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the importance of financial services to the UK economy; and calls on the Government to provide adequate support to help create the right regulatory and operational environment for that industry to ensure that the UK is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I think Springfields has a series of difficulties in the continuation of its nuclear fuel and nuclear rods business. What difference would the construction of Sizewell C make to its viability as a future supplier of nuclear fuel rods and associated activities for the UK market and, indeed, the international market?

Michael Waite: As you say, Springfields has been fuelling the majority of the UK’s nuclear fleet for almost 75 years. It is the exclusive supplier to the advanced gas-cooled reactor fleet, which will all have retired by the end of this decade. Whether Sizewell C moving forwards under a RAB would mean a supply of fuel from Springfields has yet to be determined. From a Westinghouse perspective, we see RAB as part of the solution for enabling further nuclear projects after Sizewell C. Certainly, the 2035 zero-carbon targets for the electricity generation sector require there to be further projects., If we could start a project at Wylfa and deliver our AP1000 technology under RAB, that would absolutely take its fuel from Springfields for the life of the facility and secure the life of the plant.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Q I am interested in the allocation of risk between companies and consumers. Obviously, one of the problems with the contracts for difference model is that you bear the construction risk, the political risk and so on, whereas with the RAB model you do not. If there are cost overruns, is there a risk that the consumer ends up paying for it rather than you and that you do not have the right incentives to control costs?

Julia Pyke: The first thing I would say is that, of course, it is very important that the developer remains incentivised to minimise construction spend consistent with building safely and to time. The introduction of the RAB model will enable Sizewell to move ahead, so, primarily for consumers, not only will they need the electricity that Sizewell can produce but electricity bills will reduce when it comes on, because the alternatives to nuclear as the producer of electricity when the wind is not blowing and so on will cost more. Overall it will reduce consumer bills. It is, as you say, very important that we get the incentive regime right so that, although risk is shared with consumers, developers are always incentivised.

[Anthony Browne]

Q To press home that point, how do you make sure that the right incentive for the companies for Sizewell C also ensures the costs remain under control, rather than simply being passed on to consumers?

Julia Pyke: Because the cost overruns will be shared, so the developers will take a significant proportion of cost overruns.

[Anthony Browne]

Q David, do you think the balance is right, in terms of shared risks between consumers and the companies?

David Powell: Yes. I think it needs to be fair. Clearly, what we are trying to do from a GE Hitachi perspective is really focused on driving down the cost of capital of our plants. The capital cost is a key part of that, of course, and clearly that part of the development that we are working on at the moment is to develop small modular reactors, with a key focus on reducing those costs by making the construction as simple as we can through modular build and using as much of the factory environment as we can. That obviously helps to reduce the costs of construction, as well as the risks of construction and the schedule of those. Like all technology developers, we have a reputation that we want to uphold, so our focus is trying to minimise the cost of that electricity for consumers by managing the projects very well.

[Anthony Browne]

Q Obviously you want to manage the projects well and guard your reputation, but big infrastructure projects such as nuclear power stations have in the past been subject to cost overruns. How do you manage that risk? Julia said it is shared between consumers and the companies, but in what way would it be shared? Is it 50:50? If you have a project that risks running out of control, how do you manage the risk to make sure there is as much benefit to the consumer as possible, or at least as little disbenefit, and what is the process for that?

Julia Pyke: One of the reasons that we are so keen to go ahead with Sizewell is that it is a copy of Hinkley, and it is in copies—fleet builds—that you get down construction risks. Hinkley has two units, and you can see how much easier it is to build unit 2. Common sense tells you it is because you are doing it again. We are very much hoping that Sizewell will be treated as units 3 and 4, and we believe—consistent with ideas about fleets of SMRs—that it is in repeat build where you get down costs. Nuclear in the UK has suffered from a considerable series of ones of a kind, followed by an extremely lengthy gap in construction. Nothing has been built since Sizewell B was turned on in 1995. It is by copying, the fleet effect, making sure that we learn all the lessons and using the same experienced team.

In terms of the proportion of risk sharing, it is not fixed yet, but around 50:50 is not an improbable outcome.

[Anthony Browne]

Q You will be applying for a licence to have the RAB model, and I am interested in your thoughts on the designation regime and whether the Secretary of State should have the power, or the regulator. It will obviously be a long process to apply for it and get the rights. In your business plans, that will be a huge part of the whole process.

Michael Waite: I missed out on the last question so I am happy to answer this one. On the designation process, there is not a huge amount of detail in the Bill about what the requirements are for a company project to be designated. In the 2019 RAB consultation process, we entered some fairly detailed feedback which suggested that RAB, as well as being a very positive way forward for construction and operation financing of nuclear power, could also be very effectively utilised for the development phase of a nuclear power plant project. That development phase for a technology that was mature, preferably generic design assessment-licensed, could enable the de-risking of a project under the watchful eye of the regulator, where they are learning about the project, such that when it enters the construction phase, there is a significantly lower risk profile. From a Westinghouse perspective, I would say that that designation process could take place prior to the construction phase and benefit both the project company, of course, and also ultimately the ratepayer and Government through lowering the risk profile of the overall project.

[Anthony Browne]

Q On the question about who should do the designation, Julia made the point earlier that—

[The Chair]

I am sorry. Maybe I am just getting old, but I cannot hear what you are saying. Could you speak up a bit?

[Anthony Browne]

Sorry. I am also interested in the point about who should actually do the designation. Julia, you made the point earlier that you would have a system that responds to need, as it were. Could you see this becoming just an ordinary function of the regulator, or should it always be the Secretary of State who does it?

Julia Pyke: I think that is very much a question for the Government, and it will partly depend on which organisation has invested the time and money in doing due diligence on the readiness and maturity of the project.

[Anthony Browne]

Q David, do you have any thoughts on the designation?

David Powell: I agree with Julia: clearly, that is a decision for the Government. As Mike said before, it is quite important that we look at where the designation actually starts from as well, because there is a huge part of developing nuclear projects prior to getting to construction. With the Horizon project, we saw the amount of money that Hitachi had spent—over £2 billion—and it did not get to that final investment decision, so that is an important consideration as well.

Michael Waite: If I could address the same point, I absolutely think it should be the Secretary of State who has that final authority, predominantly because there are such a large number of moving parts of the project. It is not just about maturity: it is about value for money, and is that value for money just in terms of pence per kilowatt-hour, or is it UK content? There are a very large number of very broad aspects that can be assessed.

[Anthony Browne]

Q My last question is this: obviously, one of the purposes of the regulated asset base is to open up investment opportunities for UK pension funds and so on to invest in nuclear, and they obviously want reasonably reliable long-term returns. What criteria are needed from the RAB model to make it an investable proposition for UK funds? If you draw the criteria far too tightly, it would not be very attractive, but if you made it too generous it would not be good value for the consumer, so I am just wondering what you, as people out to encourage investment, are actually looking for. What do you think is needed? I do not know who is in the best position to answer that one.

Michael Waite: None of us is in the investment community.

[Anthony Browne]

I know, but you have relations with the investors and you know what they are looking for.

Michael Waite: Indeed.

Julia Pyke: And it is my job to raise the money.

Michael Waite: Absolutely, the pension funds historically are great supporters of operating nuclear power plants, because those are some of the most consistent returns on investment possible. The construction phase and development phase are something different, so it is all about the risk profile for them. As I said, the more you can de-risk a project, the more it can become investable by those institutions.

[Anthony Browne]

Q But are you looking for particular things about the RAB model that will help your conversations with investors while providing value for consumers?

Julia Pyke: A consumer prices index-linked investment stream is likely to be very attractive to people with CPI-linked liabilities, such as British pension funds. Increasingly, the financial investment community is very much interested in environmental, social and governance issues, and whether or not their investment is making a difference. I think that nuclear has a fantastic track record of making a positive difference: not only does it produce low-carbon electricity, but it is a great leveller-up. It has got a great track record of offering well-paid, highly skilled, unionised jobs. It also has a very good track record with the environment itself, and the land outside the power stations. Those three things coming together will make it an investment that can fit very well into the portfolio of companies that want to make a difference with their money.

[Anthony Browne]

Q I agree with the levelling-up point, although that is more a political thing rather than—

[The Chair]

I am sorry, Anthony, I can’t hear what you are saying; you are mumbling.

[Anthony Browne]

I do not know whether the microphone is working. I agree with the levelling-up point, although that is more a political thing rather than, presumably, one of the criteria that the investors would use.

David Powell: Just one operational point. Julia has spoken of the confidence that the Government will bring to the investment community, and we have seen that there are companies that want to invest in projects, but we would very much like that to be operational. Getting the investment early on is quite hard to do, so the confidence from the Government’s approach on the RAB model would help to provide that confidence to the investment community.

[Anthony Browne]

That is the whole purpose of the RAB model. That is all my questions. Thank you.

Budget Resolutions

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady agreed with the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on bank taxation. Does she agree that 28 is higher than 27? The corporation tax rate on banks is currently 27%, and after the rise in corporation tax and the change to the bank corporation tax surcharge it will be 28%. By anyone’s reckoning that is an increase in taxation on banks, not a decrease.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but I do not want to get involved in nit-picking. [Interruption.] I did not mention either 27% or 28%. I was talking about the disparaging increase in the minimum wage, which has already been eaten up by the national insurance hike. That broken Tory promise means a nurse on an average salary will see her tax bill rise by £310 a year. After 18 months on the frontline of the pandemic, covid heroes will be clobbered by a tax hike and the cost of living crisis. How can it be that NHS staff and care workers are facing a £900 million tax hike while banks are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, being given a £900 million tax cut? No doubt bankers will be toasting their tax cut and the Chancellor’s decision to reduce the bank surcharge with cheaper bubbly tonight. It is clear that this Chancellor’s priorities are not the priorities of the British people.

It could have been so different. The Government could have addressed the labour shortage that threatens to derail our recovery before it gets going. They could have radically overhauled business rates, as they promised, instead of the sticking plaster we got. They could have provided the £10,000 that the Liberal Democrats want every adult to have to buy training in the new skills that they desperately need.

The Government could have provided the £150 billion green recovery plan we are calling for to insulate people’s homes and to protect our natural environment. They could have seized the opportunity afforded by COP26 to lead the way on protecting the planet. Instead, the Chancellor has slashed air passenger duty on domestic flights and admitted that overseas aid will not be restored to the legal target of 0.7% until at least 2024. What kind of signal does that send to our international partners ahead of next week’s crucial climate summit in Glasgow? Then again, the word “climate” did not appear anywhere in the Chancellor’s statement.

It is clear that this is the Budget of a former hedge-fund manager, but we cannot run a country like a hedge fund. There is no column in a spreadsheet for people’s dignity and no formula for investing in our children’s future. Today’s Budget promises a future bitter with the consequences of the Chancellor’s inaction—bitter with the betrayal of future generations. It is a Budget that handcuffs us to the consequences of climate change, fails to invest in our children’s education and hammers families with tax hikes instead of helping them with the cost-of-living crisis. What has it all been for? The suspicion remains that the Chancellor is using old data from the Office for Budget Responsibility so that he can save some spending for later in the Parliament. That is the reality: pain for ordinary families now, but a tax cut before the election to help Tory candidates. The Budget should have been about ordinary people’s jobs up and down this country but was instead all about one person’s next job—the Chancellor’s.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) for her remarks.

My constituency has a disproportionately older demographic—those who live there are 50% more likely to be over 65 than the national average—but I want to lay to rest the misperception on both sides of the House that social care is simply about the older generation. More than one in three people in the system is under the age of 65, and because younger adults are in the system for longer, spend on them is proportionately greater, so this is not just about a battle of the generations.

I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers in society who for years have been papering over the cracks in the system and the capricious nature of continuing healthcare assessments. I have personal experience of some of that as for many years my father was my mother’s unpaid carer and had to deal with that at the sharp end. For that reason, I celebrate the fact that this is a nettle grasped. It is not necessarily the whole solution but it is the start of a package of measures that moves forward a debate that has been stalled for too long. That is one reason why we should all come to the House and use our voice and platform on the hard issues that we face in society.

I applaud the Government on their selection of national insurance, which is the tax with the broadest reach. It is progressive, and that is why so many of our European neighbours have chosen to fund their social systems through similar measures. It is a chimera to think that there is another way—perhaps Opposition Members have been taking medicinal hallucinogenics—because the national insurance take is more than 10 times that of capital gains tax and inheritance tax combined. No mythical tax on wealth will give us anything like what we need to take this issue seriously—and we should take it seriously.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of political cynicism for Opposition parties to campaign repeatedly to increase taxes to spend money on health and social care and then, when the Government introduce such measures, oppose them? Does he think that they should commit themselves to scrapping the health and social care levy once it is introduced?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes an important point. We should be on a quest for consensus, and it would be useful to hear more from Opposition Members in the wind-ups.

I pay tribute to the many dedicated workers in care homes across my constituency as well as their residents—from Barlavington Manor in the north to Valerie Manor in the south and from Villa Adastra in the east to Westergate House in the west. They are just four of the 28 care homes in my constituency providing fantastic quality care. It would be lovely to see more resources pumped into them as well as their staff.

Let me conclude broadly where I started. This is a down payment on a process of reform in our healthcare systems, building on the innovation that we have seen. However, a health and social care system cannot be managed permanently on an exceptions basis. We need reorganisation, better data and better decision making to build the high-quality health and social care system that both sides of the House want to see.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

It may be helpful for me to remind the House of the uplift in funding that the Scottish Government have received as a result of the ability of the UK Government to act across the UK. Baseline funding of £28 billion last year with an additional £8.6 billion of funding—that is £36.6 billion in total—has increased to £40.9 billion this year, so the Scottish Government are getting additional funding. As a result of covid, they have received an additional £14.5 billion, but they are choosing not to prioritise that extra money or to use the additional powers they have on tax or welfare to target the issues they say they care about.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

At the beginning of this pandemic, like most people I was really worried that unemployment would rise by millions, and I am delighted that it has peaked 2 million below what most people forecast. Unemployment, at 4.7%, is now at historic lows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to raise living standards is to get those without jobs into jobs and, for those who already have jobs, to give them the training and skills they need so that they can get higher-paid jobs? That is exactly what the Government are doing.

[Steve Barclay]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is as a result of those measures that unemployment has now fallen for six months in a row and that the OBR is forecasting a peak of 5% to 6%, compared with the previous forecast of 12%. As he rightly says, the peak will be 2 million fewer. It is not just about those who are being helped back into work, however; it is also about the programme of apprenticeships, traineeships, jobs support and the doubling of work coaches that will then help people in work to get into the better jobs that they deserve.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I know that the public like it when different political parties work together for the common good, and I notice that the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which we have been discussing this evening, has been subject to absolutely glutinous harmony. I have counted five different political parties expressing support for it, which means it must be doing something good, and I fully support the measures in it.

I am particularly keen on the freeports, which have been widely discussed, but I will keep my very brief comments to the national insurance contributions deductions for veterans. We all know, as various other Members have said, that veterans have amazing skills and great strengths, which they bring to many different jobs, including in this House. We have many Officers who are veterans and, indeed, Members of Parliament who are veterans, but we also know that veterans suffer from a veteran employment gap. They suffer higher unemployment than the national average. That is not just a UK thing; it applies to other countries and is a very big issue in the United States.

One thing we can do with national insurance is tilt the employment market in veterans’ favour. I say this from an economics background, but there is a market failure occasionally in the employment market, where the interests of wider society, employers and the state in terms of the Treasury are not always aligned. Making small adjustments to incentives through the national insurance system or otherwise can actually help align those incentives for the benefit of employees, employers and the Government.

I fully support the veterans measure, but the principle of it could be extended to other areas where there are structural issues around different groups and unemployment, particularly the long-term unemployed and the disabled. There is a particular issue. If someone has been unemployed for a year, they lose motivation and lose contacts. Employers start looking askance at them and do not want to take them on. If someone has been unemployed for two years, they are more likely to retire, never having worked again, than to ever find a job. There is a reason for that.

Say an employer has two candidates who are equally good in front of them. One is already working and one has been unemployed for two years. The employer will take the risk-averse approach and think, “There might be something about that long-term unemployed person. I will stick with the employed one.” That might be a rational decision for the employer—one might argue that it is not, but most employers would behave that way. It means that the Government will carry on paying the welfare bills of the long-term unemployed person. It means that the long-term unemployed person finds it even more difficult in future to find a job, and it is not good for society to have a cohort of people who are so detached from the labour market.

There is therefore a big economic rational argument for the Government to tilt the labour market in favour of long-term unemployed people. They could do that through national insurance—there are other ways of doing it—by having deductions for people who have been unemployed for a year or two years.

The second group I will mention is the disabled, and the same issues apply there. Somebody who is blind or severely visually impaired may be very good at a job, but a lot of employers would be worried about the adjustment costs, for example, or other things—they may just be nervous and have not had experience of it before. There is a huge societal and Treasury incentive to help disabled people to get into work rather than languishing in long-term unemployment. Again, there is a rational economic argument to create an incentive to align the interests of employers, the Government and the long-term unemployed to get the disabled or others into work.

I fully support this national insurance deduction for veterans precisely for that reason: it will be good for veterans, good for employers, good for society at large and good for the Treasury. I wish this Bill the swiftest and smoothest passage through this House.

Finance Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Again in this place, we are talking about the challenges that have been created by the coronavirus—the challenges to our businesses, to individuals and to those who have been excluded from Government support—and the taxation that will have to be used to try to rebuild. In the Finance Bill that the Government have laid before us, I believe that they have missed important opportunities to do that for the benefit of all our constituents. I would echo what the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said when laying out new clause 23 and when speaking about Biden’s proposals. We have to look at this crisis in a way that we have never approached any crisis before, and on a scale that we have never done with any crisis before. We have to look for measures that will be enacted on a scale that we have never seen before.

I would also like to express my support for the amendments tabled to address and, indeed, stop the malpractice that is rife. These include an amendment tabled following the inquiry by the all-party parliamentary loan charge group into how contracting should work, to stamp out the malpractice and mis-selling to public and private sector freelance and locum workers by unregulated umbrella companies. Those practices have created a climate where tax avoidance schemes are rife and are being mis-sold.

These amendments follow the powerful report by the loan charge APPG, as I have said. BBC Radio 4 has estimated the cost to the Treasury—£1 billion a year in lost tax revenue—and The Guardian has reported that the hidden cost of umbrella companies in the UK may actually be more than £4.5 billion a year. These are some of the opportunities that I believe the Government are missing.

There are also specific amendments before us tonight about measures that would require the Chancellor to review separately the effectiveness of furlough and the self-employment income support scheme, the impact of the Finance Bill on small businesses and the impact of the Bill on transitioning to zero-carbon domestic flights by 2030. All of these, I believe, are opportunities that the Government are failing to take.

The coronavirus has caused the worst economic crisis in three centuries and brought real hardship to our constituents up and down the country in all lines of work. The furlough scheme and SEISS have helped countless people so far, and millions continue to depend on them, but the Government need to think again and review their decision to end the schemes in September. They need to think about extending them into next year. We have all been glad to see cases dropping and restrictions being eased thanks to the vaccine and the NHS, but unfortunately this does not mean that the crisis is behind us.

Covid has left businesses saddled with debt and more vulnerable than ever, especially small businesses, and many are worried that they will not make it through the year. Their employees are rightly worried about their future. As experts warn us about the potential dangers of the new Indian variant, there are worries that the final step of the reopening road map might need to be delayed, or that we might not have seen the last of social distancing.

For all those reasons, it is essential to give workers, self-employed people and small businesses certainty about the future and keep job support in place at least until the end of the year. Even at this late stage, the Chancellor must correct the injustice against the 3 million excluded, who have spent more than a year with no help at all, by finally bringing them under the umbrella of Government support.

I would also like the Chancellor to review the impact of the Bill specifically on small businesses and whether it will offer them adequate help with their debt, rent arrears, solvency and ability to employ people. Small businesses are, as countless Prime Ministers have said, the backbone of our economy and the heart of our local communities. They create the jobs that we all rely on, with 16.8 million people working in small businesses and accounting for six out of 10 private sector jobs. Local shops, cafés, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers and florists all serve our communities and bring life to our town centres and high streets. If allowed not just to survive but to thrive, they can be the engines for growth and jobs in the months and years to come. At the moment, they are struggling under record amounts of debt and months of rent arrears; the collective debt burden is more than £100 billion. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, something like a quarter of a million of its members could close by the end of this year. On top of that, they have been badly hit by the terrible EU trade deal. That is why the Chancellor must adopt a revenue compensation scheme that could help those struggling with their finances and fixed expenses to stay afloat. At the very least, the Government should be undertaking a review to assess the state of UK small businesses and offer the necessary support off the back of that.

Opportunities are also being lost to transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2030. These are all opportunities with which this challenge of many lifetimes has presented us, and which we should seize in order to help individuals, businesses, families and communities up and down the country to recover. The opportunity was there with this Finance Bill, but I do not believe that the Government have grasped it in the way that they should. I ask them to reconsider and accept the amendments.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I, too, will abide by your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, to keep my speech as short as possible.

When I was an economics correspondent a very, very long time ago, tax competition between countries was all the rage. There was a sort of mainstream consensus that it was a good thing because it helped give countries an incentive to be an attractive place to do business, but in the last couple of decades it has become clear how easy it is for international companies to run circles around national rules and reduce their tax bills by shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, and we end up with this outrageous, unconscionable position of some of the world’s largest companies paying some of the smallest corporation tax rates. That causes anger across the UK and on both sides of this House; we are all aligned in the objective of ensuring that big companies pay a fair share of tax.

This Government have been doing an awful lot, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) recognised, to try to tackle this issue both within the UK and internationally, including through measures such as the diverted profits tax, the digital services tax and changes on tax to subsidiaries. When I was chief executive of the British Bankers Association, I was involved with a lot of the implementation of those rules.

We need to take measures internationally as well; this is an international problem, so ideally we need an international solution. The difficulty, though, is getting an agreement between a large number of different countries. Normally these sorts of discussions go through the OECD, which is so big that it is difficult to get agreement and progress is absolutely glacial. That is why, on things such as the digital services tax, the UK has opted to act unilaterally before an international agreement can be agreed. I very much welcome the fact that the initiative is now being led by the G7, because we are far more likely to get agreement from seven major countries, and then to expand that out to the G20 and then to the OECD.

As we have heard tonight, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), these are complex negotiations. There are two interlinked pillars at the OECD: the scope of the tax and the level of the tax if there is a global minimum rate of corporation tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, there is no point in agreeing a global level of corporation tax if all we are doing is taxing companies in California; the two parts of the negotiations are intertwined. I very much welcome the fact that Government are involved in these negotiations. I completely respect that they may wish to negotiate more in private than in public, as that is often the best way; I know that their intentions are absolutely right.

That brings me to new clause 23. It is the wrong review at the wrong time. The new clause asks the Government to review the corporation tax set at 21%, but, as the hon. Member for Ealing North said, it actually looks like Joe Biden and the US are now looking at 15%, so this proposal is already out of date and it has not even been voted on yet. It is also at the wrong time because what we do not want to do in the middle of an international negotiation is tie our hands, display all our cards and show what we are doing. It could create a dynamic in the negotiations that would actually set back the UK’s ambition to ensure that companies pay a fair rate of tax. I therefore fully support the Government in rejecting the new clause. I also fully support them on reaching a strong global agreement to ensure that the world’s biggest companies pay their fair share of tax.

I hope that that was less than five minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Definite brownie points for the hon. Gentleman.

Financial Services Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

I will support the Lords amendments, and I hope the Minister will take it in the good spirit in which it is meant when I say that I will continue to lobby him on these issues, because I know that he does want to get this right. Currently, however, there are still too many unknowns about what will happen next, and without that action—without that clear commitment, on tackling not just consumer detriment but climate change—we will always be playing catch-up. Our constituents need and deserve nothing less than for us to take this forward and be world leaders.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I will keep my remarks short, because I know it is late and we have a lot of work to do.

There are many amendments to welcome from the other House, particularly the regulation of “buy now, pay later” by the Financial Conduct Authority, where there is clear risk of consumer harm. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a remarkably ineffective piece of legislation but it is right that it is extended to e-money, as there is a clear loophole there. On cashback without purchase, there is no risk of consumer detriment there and we need to increase access to cash. It is right that it is brought outside the FCA’s remit.

On Lords amendment 1 and the duty of care, I spent five years of my life trying to get the banking industry to improve the care given to vulnerable customers, and clearly many consumer harms carry on. I launched schemes, actually in this House, for the banking industry to help customers with cancer and customers with Alzheimer’s. I am very attracted to the idea of some sort of blanket duty of care, but I do not support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that, as written, it is so wide-ranging that there would clearly be massive unintended consequences, which even vulnerable customers would live to regret. The second is that, as the Minister said, the FCA already has very wide-ranging powers, almost certainly enough to deal with all the consumer harms that need to be dealt with. I very much welcome the Government’s move, through their amendment, to push the FCA to look at how to reduce consumer harm and implement an effective duty of care.

On Lords amendment 8, mortgage prisoners absolutely need help. They have suffered massively, through no fault of their own, losing tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. We have rehearsed all the arguments tonight for and against this measure. We agree that we need to help these people, but the question is: how do we do that? The cap of interest rates is, as people say, a sticking plaster—even its supporters say that. I can see the appeal of it, but this sticking plaster comes at great cost: Parliament would be setting out interest rates in primary legislation. That could lead to huge unintended consequences in lots of ways—for example, through the impact on financial stability that we heard about earlier on some of the firms. It would also set an extraordinary precedent, with the Government doing price controls in that way. One does not have to be an historian of the 1970s to know of all the dangers of price controls.

It is also really not the solution we need. Where someone is trapped in a horrible prison with their guards abusing them and they are very uncomfortable, would they want that prison to be made more comfortable and the guards to behave themselves, as this cap in effect proposes, or would they want to get out of the prison? They would want to get out of the prison. We need to make sure that mortgage prisoners can move to other mortgage providers. That should apply to all people who are mortgage prisoners, including those who are in arrears, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out. This is very complicated stuff. There are lots of reasons why people cannot move, whether it is their loan-to-value ratio or their income stream, or because they are in arrears. It is absolutely right that they should be helped to go to regular mainstream mortgage lenders that are offering other suppliers, and I very much welcome the Government move to really push on that, working with the FCA. I take on trust their commitment to really push in that direction and get a solution to that for all the mortgage prisoners.

For those reasons, I am happy to vote against Lords amendment 8, so long as the Government do everything they can to help those prisoners.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I, too, will keep my remarks brief. In the debate tonight I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, will be opposing the Government’s motions to disagree with Lords amendments 1 and 8.

In particular, I would like to focus my comments on Lords amendment 8. This amendment would offer significant relief, I believe, to thousands of so-called mortgage prisoners caught in a vicious cycle of debt through no fault of their own. We have already heard the arguments rehearsed and some terrible stories of what they have been through. All that has been the result of the original decision, after the collapse of the mortgage providers, to sell off those mortgages to investment funds, and that has left as many as a quarter of a million homeowners trapped in spiralling mortgage costs for more than a decade now.

It is a situation that the Government have failed to address, even though there is clear evidence that it is jeopardising wellbeing. A recent study found that mortgage prisoners experienced higher rates of physical and mental health problems, and that they are up to 40% more likely to default as a result of coronavirus. The significance of this amendment is that it would finally unlock this trap and offer an escape from the nightmare of the past decade. Significantly, it would lower interest payments through a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners who are borrowing from a firm that no longer lends to new customers. The cap would be no higher than 2% above the Bank of England base rate, which is currently a mere 0.1%. It would also require lenders to offer mortgage prisoners new fixed interest rate deals in certain circumstances—for example, if they have kept up with payments in the past 12 months, if they have an outstanding loan amount of over £10,000, or if they have not received consent to let the property.

The misery caused to tens of thousands over the past decade and the continuing threat it poses demand that we act. We have heard tonight why. To me, it seems simple. It seems the correct thing to do, and therefore I strongly urge the House to reject the Government’s motion to disagree with this amendment—Lords amendment 8 —as well as with Lords amendment 1.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 2)
Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

Thank you, Chair. Apologies, I do not know what happened just then, but it is now a pleasure to take part in this debate.

I will be supporting amendment 81, as will the Liberal Democrats, which would ensure that the stamp duty land tax holiday no longer applies to the purchase of second homes. I will keep my remarks short, in the light of the earlier mishap. Suffice it to say that we believe that the SDLT holiday is not effective in helping first-time buyers on to the housing market. Giving a tax break to people who have already saved money for their property and can already afford a mortgage does not entirely solve the problem. Extending the SDLT holiday would serve only to avoid a cliff edge, depriving the Treasury of much-needed funds at a time when there are many extremely pressing calls on our public finances. Combined with the new lower deposit mortgage scheme launched in the Budget, its only effect is to increase demand for housing without increasing the supply of homes. For me, and for the Liberal Democrats, that is crucial. Members can see where I am going with this: we need to increase the supply of homes.

The Government need to take steps to increase the number of homes being built. They first must make and then keep to their targets, support local authorities that want to build new homes and enforce affordable homes targets. That must include building 100,000 new social homes a year. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a new rent to buy scheme, where people can build up shares in housing association homes through their rent. I ask the Government to examine the merits of that proposal. These steps would be more effective in getting people on to the housing ladder. Therefore, I ask that the amendment be supported and I ask the Government to consider the rent to buy scheme as a way of realistically helping people on to the housing ladder without increasing demand for housing that is not there.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome many of the measures in the Finance Bill, particularly the measures on stamp duty. Like many people who called for a stamp duty holiday, I welcomed it when the Government announced it and I am glad to see that it has been one of the most successful stimuli to economic activity that the country has seen. The moribund market is now racing ahead, albeit possibly slightly too fast. I recognise that homeowners need certainty—many of them are in the middle of transactions —so this is good. We are not out of the pandemic yet, so I welcome the Government’s move to extend the stamp duty holiday to the end of June. I also welcome the fact that they are removing the steep cliff edge and replacing it with a smaller cliff edge by tapering it out and extending it at a lower rate until the end of October. Those are both good measures that will keep the housing market going and give certainty to homeowners.

I do not support amendment 81, which proposes that these measures should not apply to second homes, although I understand the social justice argument behind it. The purpose of the stamp duty holiday is to stimulate economic activity, and whether a home is being bought to live in or as an investment property, that still involves economic activity in the housing market. Our focus here is on stimulating the market, and both those activities have equal effect.

Back in 2012, I co-founded an organisation called the HomeOwners Alliance, Britain’s first and only consumer group for homeowners. Our aim was to champion homeowners and aspiring homeowners and to help people to get into the housing market, recognising that home ownership is a valid aspiration for all young people, and indeed older people, and that the primary role of homes is to be lived in. They are not investments or casinos; they are to be lived in, and that should be the role of Government policy.

I wrote various papers on the reform of stamp duty. I will not go on about the details, but there were two particular reforms that I called for. One was an increase in the stamp duty on second homes, investment properties and buy-to-lets. The other was an increase in the stamp duty for non-residential buyers. The Government have already introduced the first of those, and I think they have raised almost as much money from that as they do from residential stamp duty. Now, in this Bill, they are introducing the stamp duty surcharge for non-residential buyers—the people who want to buy homes in this country but who have no intention of living in them. As a country, we have been very generous to such people—far more generous than most other countries—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) said, this has a real cost in terms of preventing other people from buying a home that they actually want to live in.

It is very welcome that the Government are introducing the 2% surcharge for non-residential buyers who do not want to live in the UK. It is right that it should start low—2% is quite low; that is often the fee that we pay to the estate agent—but the Government should monitor it. There will be an opportunity to increase that rate, while ensuring that doing so does not have really bad effects on the market but that it does have an effect on demand and helps to free up properties for people who want to buy a home to live in. The money from these measures is being used to house rough sleepers, which is very welcome, but in the longer term as we raise the rate and more money is brought in, I would use that revenue to reduce the burden of stamp duty for those buying homes that they want to live in. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington so eloquently said, stamp duty is a big burden for homeowners. Following those thoughts for the future, I will be fully supporting the Government’s policies.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this part of the Finance Bill, and I want to start by saying thank you to the Treasury for listening to people’s suggestions relating to the stamp duty land tax holiday and for listening to the voice of the industry, which called for this extension. The original decision at the start of the pandemic to provide that stamp duty holiday was brilliant. It worked. It was the right measure at the right time, and it stimulated our economy and resulted in an almost 33% increase in the amount of home moves. It kept the whole show on the road. Now, as my hon. Friends have mentioned, the decision to extend it will remove the cliff edge that we could have faced when it went away, along with the tapering of other support packages.

These are sensitive times, and there are fiscal measures in place that are carefully balanced to stimulate growth, support people, jobs and businesses, and project confidence to the markets so that we can credibly borrow all this money to invest in our covid response, but this stamp duty holiday cannot go on for ever; it is after all, a revenue-negative intervention from the Treasury, despite the wider economic stimuli that it creates for the painters, movers, builders, white goods salesmen and so on.

So what do we do with a problem such as SDLT? I do not believe that it is simply a case, as some might say, of replacing one tax with another. We do too much shuffling and tinkering with our taxation system and our housing market. As a result, our taxation system is fiendishly complicated. However, this is our opportunity for radical reform, and this clause proves it. We need to look at the role of property values in locally raised revenue. We need to include our commitments on net zero and levelling up, as well as the target of building 300,000 houses a year.

Other interventions, such as the freeport scheme, can provide an excellent place to start. Let us put that idea on steroids. Let us have special economic zones to deliver levelling up and green homes, and sustainable investment in businesses, jobs and homes and the infrastructure that goes with them. With levers such as the super deduction combining with our global Britain approach, we can reach out to the world to get more foreign direct investment, more onshoring of manufacturing and more global brands relocating to those areas that we will level up.

The property tax element is fundamental here because it relates to the homes that people live in—the people who will do the jobs that will benefit from this investment and whom we will support through the levelling-up agenda. To put it simply, we cannot do levelling up without fixing the housing market, and the way we tax it, and what we disincentivise and incentivise as a result of that taxation, are a great place to start. I therefore fully support this clause.

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Anthony Browne Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Committee stage
Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which hopes to improve the transparency behind emergency spending that we are being asked to sign off. When the Conservative party took office 11 years ago, it promised people transparency and responsible spending. The Prime Minister’s predecessor even told us that sunlight was the best disinfectant—could we not do with some disinfectant to rid us of the stench of cronyism right now?

One hundred and eight million pounds to a pest control firm to make PPE; £60 million on antibody tests that did not work. To top it off, a £37 billion test and trace system that at times did not test and did not trace. It was run not by clinicians or the NHS, but by a failed phone company executive, who just so happened to be one of the Prime Minister’s mates from the other place.

Cronyism, irresponsible spending and sweetheart deals that handed the public’s taxes to their mates are what this Government are all about—a £133 million testing contract to a Tory donor, £108 million to Serco, and a £40,000 pay rise to Dominic Cummings. Under this Government, someone who breaks the rules and fails at their job gets a pay rise; those who save people’s lives get a pay cut. If the Conservative party cannot be trusted to spend people’s taxes wisely, it does not deserve to serve our country.

The Minister asked for questions, and I am sure we all look forward to some answers. Will he tell the House why as much as £11 million was spent on the initial trial version of the NHS Test and Trace app before it was abandoned? Will he confirm whether he personally played any part in recommending contractors to the Government over the past year? We are often told by the party of Government that money cannot be found to feed hungry schoolkids, or that the healthcare heroes who looked after our loved ones during the pandemic cannot have a pay rise. We are told by Conservative peers that nurses should be grateful for the job security they have.

The public have a right to know how their money is being spent. Covid contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors have now risen to almost £2 billion. Such money could have provided free school meals to each of the 1.4 million children in poverty, including nearly 4,000 children in Luton North. If there is money for the Prime Minister’s mates, there is money to feed hungry kids. If we can find £30 million for the bloke down the pub, we can find money to give nurses, and every other healthcare worker, a pay increase.

Conservative Members will say there was no choice at the start of the crisis and that it was an emergency, as it was. However, there is always a choice. Instead of turning to established PPE providers from the UK safety industry, Ministers chose a deal that handed £30 million to the Health and Social Care Secretary’s mate from down the pub. That is a cruel and blatant failure by this Government. The Bill asks us to sign off up to £266 billion in emergency loans by the Government. That might be necessary, but it is unnecessary for such a number to go unchecked.

It is our job as MPs across the House to hold the Government to account. The public expect better and for us to spend their money properly, which is why Labour has tabled this amendment. We are not saying that the Government should not do everything in their power to help people in an emergency; we are saying that they must never forget whose money they are spending, and who they need to answer to in the end: the British people.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I agree with the shadow Minister that we need accountability and transparency, but there is already a whole framework for public spending. As others have said, all the amendment does is introduce more bureaucracy into the Contingency Fund, without adding any value from the perspective of public accountability.

We need to learn the lessons from all this. It is an unprecedented thing that hopefully will never happen again, but we must ensure that we learn those lessons. Fortunately, there are bodies that help us learn those lessons, such as the National Audit Office, which has already done several reports into procurement.

Given that the speeches made by various Members on the Opposition Benches have been all about scoring cheap party political points, casting aspersions on the Government and Ministers and so on, I thought it was worth quoting the finding of the main National Audit Office report about the issues to which they are referring. It said:

“In the examples we examined where there were potential conflicts of interest involving ministers, we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”

That is the National Audit Office, which has strong powers of investigation.

I find it rather disturbing that the Opposition are trying to use this important issue just to score cheap political points. I suppose I should not; I am a new politician, and I should get used to it. What I find most concerning about the Labour party is its clear disdain for the private sector. It is using this issue to criticise private sector manufacturers. The speaker before me, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for example, criticised companies that were trying to produce PPE. We did not have a PPE industry in the UK at the start of this—we imported it all—and I welcome the fact that lots of companies that had not made PPE put in the effort to develop it and then supply it to the national health service. That is to be welcomed.

The drugs company in my constituency, AstraZeneca, did not do any diagnostic testing. That was not what it did; it had no arm doing that. It said, “Right, we will learn how to do this”, and it did it. It set up a whole arm to do diagnostic testing. It did that at no profit, and that is now a huge part of the testing industry in the UK. It also agreed to produce the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine at no profit to itself and to give that to the developing world on a not-for-profit basis throughout the pandemic.

That is a private sector company, as is Pfizer, which produces the Pfizer vaccine, and Moderna, which does the Moderna vaccine. All these are private sector companies coming to our rescue and to the rescue of other countries around the world when we need it, and that is very much to be welcomed. I wish the Opposition would pay tribute to the efforts of the private sector, often working in collaboration with the public sector. It is a partnership.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I will just give way to the hon. Lady before I finish.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman has talked a lot about money going out into the private sector, but a lot of this contingency money has gone into the public sector. The key point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) highlighted, that it is taxpayers’ money. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should have clear oversight and regular reporting of how taxpayers’ money is being spent.

[Anthony Browne]

I agree, and I welcome the points that the hon. Lady makes. I did say in my speech on Second Reading that I welcome the fact that the Labour party have this new-found interest in value for money, because I absolutely believe that taxpayers’ money is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money and it should be treated as such. As I said earlier, we have sufficient mechanisms for accountability and transparency. We do not need this new clause, and I will not support it.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]]

I would like to speak to new clause 1. First, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for putting the record straight. It was a reflection of the fact that there was no Opposition Minister on duty. It is suboptimal to have an Opposition Minister speaking by video link: Members have no opportunity to challenge some of his statements, many of which I thought were absolutely out of order. You are obviously the judge of that, Chair, but to call Ministers corrupt, as other Members have in this debate, or to accuse them of cronyism, is basically bringing this House into disrepute.

Yet again, we have the Opposition’s obsession that everything public sector is good and everything private sector is bad. It is simply outrageous. It goes back to that sturdy horse analogy. It is pulling the whole wagon, whether it be vaccine companies or indeed our GPs. Our GPs have done a wonderful job disseminating the vaccine to so many people, and it is heart-warming to go to those centres and see that. GPs are private practices. The health service has never been totally public sector, and we should recognise that. We should recognise the benefits that the private sector brings, just as the public sector clearly brings huge benefits, too.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that this new clause would simply bring an unnecessary added layer of bureaucracy. I absolutely support the need for accountability and the proper assessment of where taxpayers’ money is spent—we absolutely must be responsible about that—but I do not know where it would end under the new clause, because much of the money that we have provided to deal with the coronavirus crisis has been provided through the private sector, not least the loans through the banks. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) seemed to think that there were no checks on that process, which is clearly not the case. Banks go through a lot of checks, even when the Government are guaranteeing loans, so that is simply not correct.